[Python-Dev] Mercurial workflow question... (original) (raw)

Tim Delaney tim.delaney at aptare.com
Mon Dec 17 06:25:26 CET 2012

Possibly. A collapsed changeset is more likely to have larger hunks of changes e.g. two changesets that each modified adjacent pieces of code get collapsed down to a single change hunk - which would make the merge machinery have to work harder to detect moved hunks, etc.

In practice, so long as each collapsed changeset is for a single change I haven't seen this be a major issue. However, I'm personally a "create a new named branch for each task, keep all intermediate history" kind of guy (and I get to set the rules for my team ;) so I don't see collapsed changesets very often.

Tim Delaney

On 17 December 2012 16:17, Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger at gmail.com>wrote:

On Dec 13, 2012, at 7:00 PM, Chris Jerdonek <chris.jerdonek at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:21:24 -0500, Trent Nelson <trent at snakebite.org> wrote: >>> - Use a completely separate clone to house all the intermediate >>> commits, then generate a diff once the final commit is ready, >>> then apply that diff to the main cpython repo, then push that. >>> This approach is fine, but it seems counter-intuitive to the >>> whole concept of DVCS. >> >> Perhaps. But that's exactly what I did with the email package changes >> for 3.3. >> >> You seem to have a tension between "all those dirty little commits" and >> "clean history" and the fact that a dvcs is designed to preserve all >> those commits...if you don't want those intermediate commits in the >> official repo, then why is a diff/patch a bad way to achieve that? > > Right. And you usually have to do this beforehand anyways to upload > your changes to the tracker for review. > > Also, for the record (not that anyone has said anything to the > contrary), our dev guide says, "You should collapse changesets of a > single feature or bugfix before pushing the result to the main > repository. The reason is that we don’t want the history to be full of > intermediate commits recording the private history of the person > working on a patch. If you are using the rebase extension, consider > adding the --collapse option to hg rebase. The collapse extension is > another choice." > > (from http://docs.python.org/devguide/committing.html#working-with-mercurial )

Does hg's ability to "make merges easier than svn" depend on having all the intermediate commits? I thought the theory was that the smaller changesets provided extra information that made it possible to merge two expansive groups of changes. Raymond

Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev at python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/timothy.c.delaney%40gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20121217/532a9da6/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list